Affective impressions and memorability of color-form combinations

HUMANS RECOGNIZE OR MEMORIZE particulars in their daily lives that consist of combinations of many attributes, like as several parts, colors, or webs We are interested in trying to determine what marks of combinations tend to be more memorable. Many researchers have shown that congruent information with schema or adjoining matter can be recognized well (Bellezza & Bower, 1981; Cohen, 1977; Cohen, 1981; Judd & Kulik, 1980; Smith & Graesser, 1981) and a certain quantity of researchers have indicated that incongruence in connection or expectance encourages memorability (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976; Hastie & Kumar, 1979; Srull 1981; Whittlesea & Williams, 2001)

lately many researchers (e.g., Bower, 1981) focusing upon affective aspects in cognitive processe have examined the affective value of stimuli or the emotional states of participants. In studies of humor congruency effects (Bower; Isen, Shalker, Clark, & Karp, 1978) or negativity bias (Hamilton & Zanna, 1972; Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; Pratto & John 1991) researchers have believed that humans can preferentially proces important information or systematically store of the like kind information so that it may be accurately remembered.

In this close attention we investigated how various combinations of the various impressions produc from stimuli affect recognition or memorability. We defined an impression as a "highly subjective image that a individual affectively receives from a stimulus." For example, a individual not only feels "this painting is beneficial (or bad)," but also "this painting is warm" or "this painting is strong" of the like kind impressions are a type of subjective or holistic information and mirror particular affective feelings or replys It is important to understand by what mode combinations of various impressions affect recognition because tribe are faced with various combinations of impressions in daily life. Researchers have investigated the characteristics of the impressions systematically and quantitatively using the Semantic Differential (SD) [i]modus operandi[/i] (Osgood, Suci, & Tennenbaum, 1957)

Semantic Differential Method

In the 1950 Osgood et al. (1957) lay opened the SD method to measure the affective meanings of language upon the basis of the hypothesis that words include the one and the other literal and affective meanings. With the SD rule various bipolar adjectives are used to justice multiple impressions received from the materials. Then, the multiple impressions are described within fewer dimensions based upon correlations among the ratings of the adjectives used. Osgood et al. allude toed that SD data can be summarized using three main factors: Activity, vigor and Evaluation. Activio' is showed by adjectives such as active-passive or cheerful-cheerless. efficacy is represented by adjectives like as powerful-weak or hard-soft, and Evaluation is showed by adjectives such as beautiful-ugly or likable unlikable. These factors have been confirmed among many materials (concept or objects) tillages and countries (Osgood, 1960; Osgood et al.).

Since its creation, the SD [i]modus operandi[/i] has been used in various impressions studies. However, there have been relatively not many studies in which researchers examine the result of these factors on the memorability of stimuli. For example, Winograd (1966) indicated that words that were shut up to each other on the semantic differential factor dimension were easily confused. Turvey and Fertig (1970) discussed the result of the polarity of factors upon proactive interference and indicated that words upon the same end of a dimension be like each other in terms of affective meaning compared with words upon the opposite end of a dimension, or upon a different dimension. Wickens and Clark (1968) and Wickens (1970) reported that words categorized upon different factor dimensions or with opposite polarities upon the same dimension are encod and stored differently than words categorized upon the same factor dimension with the same polarity. The researchers notion that word stimuli are stored using affective categories based upon the SD dimensions. Winograd's, Turvey and Furtig's, and Wickens and Clark's rises indicate that Osgood's (1957) three factors substantially affect the memory proces lately Xiong, Franks, and Logan (2003) also used the SD factors as learning categories in a priming experiment. The priming result was largest when the words were in the same category, whereas there was little priming issue when there was a large distance in the factor space of the words. Therefore, it appears that words in the same factor category are recognized based upon a common cognitive process.

reciprocally several researchers (Osgood et al., 1957; Oyama, 2003; Oyama, Yamada, & Iwasawa, 1998) have examined combinations of stimuli using the SD course Of particular interest are studies in which researchers have investigated in what way individual impressions of colors or shapes contribute to predicting the overall impression of a combined stimulus containing a color and shape or a combination of sum of two units colors (Oyama). Osgood et al. fix a characteristic effect specific to the Evaluation factor, called pessimistic evaluative stickiness. They fix that overall impressions of combined stimuli could not solitary be accurately predicted from the individual stimuli, on the other hand also the overall impressions keeped toward the negative direction when positive words (high Evaluation) were combined with negative words (low Evaluation). Hogg (1969) noted differences between the predicted and observ values regarding scales of pleasant-unpleasant and strong-weak. The rated values for the color pairs were not plenteous more pleasant or strong than were the values predicted from regression formula. Oyama et al., and Oyama, proposeed that Activity and Potency had additive properties whereas Evaluation had a nonadditive attribute This conclusion was based upon multiple regression analyses of the factor scores of combined stimuli that consisted of colors and forms (or video images and music) and the factor scores of colors and forms (or video images and music) that were independently not awayed The Evaluation factor tends to reveal a manifold interaction, in which the impression of combined stimuli is likely to shift in a negative direction and does not correspond to the values predicted from the impressions of individual stimuli. In contrast, the Activity and energy factor scores of combined stimuli can be predicted from the factor scores of individual stimuli. A major focus of our application of mind was to investigate the reasons wherefore these different characteristics are observ for the three factors.